No. It objectively indicates a different comprehension of what freedoms are important and what are not. Some self-described socialist candidates have an authoritarian bent, just like self-described conservatives, classical liberals, neo-liberals, libertarian socialists, and libertarians. But you have to figure that out on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom is not a purely a priori issue we can discuss from our armchairs. One has to consider what freedom real human beings need and want, which means knowing actual human psychology, culture, economics, etc. One has to consider the real costs of protecting certain freedoms. This is a microcosm of the gun debate: The very issue at question is how far the liberty of a private citizen to own a weapon can meaningfully extend before everyone else's rights to security and doing business without being criminally intimidated extends.

Socialist candidates usually emphasize the freedoms of the poor and the positive rights of access to food, water, shelter, medical care, etc. They tend to view capitalism as causing a harm that government must in the short-term at least stop. That's a coherent position.

The problem with capitalists is that they think that the freedoms they want are the only ones anyone wants. In fact, freedom is about human beings. No one worthy of your time asks for the right to have unlimited flying privileges with your wings, because no one has wings to fly with in the first place. And we all know that, for example, the right of free speech ends when it comes to libel, slander, painting political slogans on someone's property, protesting with a rock concert at 3 in the morning, criminal intimidation, harassment... In other words, freedoms and rights conflict. Capitalists like to sweep that under the rug when it's inconvenient to them.

Yes, rights like freedom of speech matter too. But capitalism threatens those as well. Capitalism makes it so some have a gigantic megaphone and the ability to silence others with intimidation. But capitalists never talk about that.

One might argue the socialism provides a greater degree of freedom by taking care of the bottom layers in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If you don't have to fight for food and shelter on a daily basis, you are free to pursue greater things, and eventually find lover, happiness and self-actualization.
simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

I think people often conflate socialism with fascism, but they are two very different things. Fascism can infect any form of government, Mussolini's capitalist, right wing Italy was fascist as well as Mao's communist China. And, currently, we have socialist countries that are very free, like Denmark and Sweden...while some capitalist countries are much less free, like China - currently listed as one of the Top Ten most capitalist countries, while still maintaining fascist policies with regards to free speech, human rights, and their 'justice system'.
blog.peerform.com/the-five-most-capitalistic-countries-in-the-world/

Freedom doesn't hinge on the type of economic system a country embraces....it hinges on how much power the government applies to the control of its citizens.